Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds operational behavior beyond annotations: pagination with exact total, sort options, the precedence of run_id over other args, and the not-found behavior for foreign/unknown run_ids. This meaningfully extends the agent's understanding without contradicting annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then details feed and run behaviors. It is not overly verbose; every sentence contributes functional information. The structure could be slightly clearer with separation of modes, but it remains efficient and scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only feed tool with no output schema, the description covers the key invocation details: pagination, sorting, run_id override, access restrictions, and row content. It doesn't spell out the exact JSON response structure, but given the tool's simplicity and the description's coverage, an agent has sufficient context to make correct calls and interpret results reasonably.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds cross-parameter semantics: without run_id it's a pageable feed, with run_id the other arguments are ignored. It also specifies default/max for limit and sort defaults, which the schema already includes but the description reinforces the behavioral interplay, adding value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the resource (dated, cited developments from research runs) and what it contains (headline, category, verification state, corroborating source count). It distinguishes this tool from the sibling company-focused tools by tying outputs to research runs and the caller's team scope. The dual feed/run modes are explicit, so an agent can infer the tool's purpose without needing the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains the two usage modes (feed vs. run_id lookup) and notes that run_id overrides other parameters. It clarifies that another team's run_id returns not found, setting expectations. However, it does not name any sibling alternatives or explicitly state when to prefer this tool over others, though the context makes it clear this is for research findings rather than company data.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.